Val

I thank you for the detailed answer. It is going to take me time to properly think about everything you have said. I will get back to you when I have finished thinking about it. You have definitely given me lots to think about and I thank you for it.

But one thing I will say is that I am talking about cultural anarchism instead of economical one. such a culture needs time to grow and a few months of economic decentralization is a god start anarchism requires a lot more than that.

EDIT: You just might have triggered a massive change in how I perceive politics. Thank You!

I did not claim that anarchist societies did not have internal problems, I said that anarchist societies have ended because of external problems. Internal problems exists but they aren't fatal. The USSR and CCP were not anarchist. The economy may have functioned anarchically for a couple of months but the people were not anarchists and the ones that took power were vanguardists (because they usurped the previous state and used it to repress the population).

Also I am interested to know how anarchy, the system that is inherently based on dissent, does not allow dissent. Anarchy is only dissent. There isn't a single anarchist ideology. Anarchy is a way of thought that rejects the idea of conformity and it being a "single party system" is an insane thing to suggest.

The last thing I want to do is cause harm. I belie this society is possible but I do not want it implemented unless I know it can survive in a humane way. This is ideology it is the long term goals that we set for ourselves so we have something to strive for. This change should only happen if the people are ready for it. If they believe it. I think that any society that humans can imagine can exists as long as all the individuals in that society want it to.

My worldview does not cause less harm than any of the current ones. All of the points that you but forward come from the lack of faith in the system, or more accurately the people that make up the system. My ideology is based on the fact that people can be good, kind and selfless and the only thing stopping entire society from being those things is because our natural kindness gets destroyed by the current culture. I understand that this might be a naive thing to think but the world is currently ending (because of the "less harmful ideologies") so being naive and hopeful is the best thing I can do.

I am an anarchist because It is a society build on human interaction, kindness, friendliness, acceptance and tolerance. That is what my anarchy is. people existing for the sake of their friends and neighbors. If you can show me another ideology that has all of that I am eager to listen. because those things are antithetical to capitalism, and if you remove all of the things from capitalism that make it incompatible you will end up with anarchy.

The biggest problem about Saharan solar farm is how are you going to get the power to where it needs to be?

The examples you provide are negatively biased. You don't know all of the normal and useful things they learn because they don't stand out. Also two of those examples (Church and school busses) come from current cultural biases, something a solarpunk society would hopefully mitigate.

I think AI is not suited for discussion. It might be good at conversation but discussion isn't just conversation. Discussion requires understanding of others to a degree I don't think AI can achieve.

I concede my point about resources, but will add that the model will get outdated and will need retraining every once in a while.

Textbooks are bad. I agree. I just think they should be replaced with a human that knows what they are talking about and the topics that are learnt are things that the kid actually wants to know instead of what people think they should know.

Also I can't help but notice you ignored one of my core arguments: that solarpunk societies are about strong human connections and replacing one of the main sources of these connections is a bad idea.

I also think that the process of finding information is as important as the actual information. If all of your questions are answered just by typing it into the computer then you never learn the importance of checking information accuracy, accounting for bias and other very useful skills.

AI allows you to shortcut to the information you seek which means you never learn how to actually think for yourself.

knowledge will obviously come from other sources too. When kids socialize with others they will learn things naturally, and discussion should absolutely be encouraged. However AI produces a lot of problems. AIs have bias based on the information they learn, they require resources to build and maintain and cannot discuss information accurately. I just don't see what AI adds over just interacting with other people.

Solarpunk societies, like all post-capitalist societies, are build on strong human relations, replacing one of the avenues of creating them with an hallucinating rock (exaggeration I know) just seems weird.

I don't think reading and maths needs to be obligatory. Kids will pick it up naturally through their own curiosity when trying to learn about something more advanced.

What you are describing is pretty close to a university. Which makes sense because universities are places of learning, unlike schools which are prisons of disciplining and the goal isn't to learn but to memorize minutia for about a month before moving to the next topic.

I don't think we need AI. Without the need to constantly work the tutor can just be one of the child's parents. This would work better because children naturally respect and want to emulate their parents. The tutor doesn't even need to know everything and just teach how to analyze situations and find knowledge.

But I agree that kids should be included in workspaces to teach them about necessary (or interesting) jobs.

Overall I think the best way is to allow kids to find their own best ways to learn.

I am not against hierarchies if they are justified. The hierarchies that are democratic and non-coercive are acceptable.

Power should not be consolidated, it should be distributed among the population. Any sort of consolidation of power opens the door for people to create systems and hierarchies that maintain power unjustly.

I think that if a society is capable of working in a smaller scale it can be scaled up. Especially with the technology that we have today.

I don't think that anarchism is unsustainable. all attempts to create anarchist societies have ended because of outside factors (invasions). I don't see these as shortcomings of anarchism but instead as shortcomings of other systems to tolerate alternate political systems. Also if an anarchist society descends into fascism (red or otherwise) then that is because the people didn't do enough to oppose it.

I also apologize if some of these statements are short. You can't unbind ctrl+w to close the window on firefox and I use it to delete the last word so I accidentally deleted my previous two attempts to answer this comment.

Also I appreciate this conversation as it requires me to think through my ideology.

The governing core is the society. If they say no then that society changes. That is how the system works. The people decide how to live their life and if they don't want to live a certain way they change. As long as the people stay skeptical of all authority the system works. If they don't it collapses into a class based society.

You don't need perfect reprogramming. You just need a couple of people who want to live this way and let them live.

Anarchism works. The systems that I am describing have been successfully implemented and work.

What are you trying to say here?

the most dependable members become a governing core.

Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what's best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.

There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won't protect you.

Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.